Shayler Talks 911 on Sky News

poiuytr · Post by **poiuytr** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:22 am

Me think it's a lie too.

So does 70% of the soldiers in Iraq.
It doesn't prevent them though from obeying like sheeps heading for the slaughterhouse.

Me think we need something more than the usual "it's a lie".Let's try some deep research,done preferably by people able to substantiate with facts what they are talking about.

Snowygrouch · Post by **Snowygrouch** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:47 am

All,
I would be wary of anyone who suggests that "to get on TV you have to sell out".

It just isnt true!

I`ve been on TV with Shayler (only once I admit) and was not approached nor 'passed any notes' by anyone; before or after.

If anyone REALLY REALLY wants to shut you up; you end up like our recent Russian friend or Daniel Pearl or any one of the thousands of "missing persons" who appear every year in the UK; high profile or not. Being famous didnt help Diana or Kennedy very much did it?

I am noted (I hope) as being one of the most hardcore plane (please note: 'plane' does NOT translate as THE EXACT PLANES) huggers. While I must disagree strongly with Davids mentioning of NPT; I cannot argue with the massive awareness he has brought of the issue of 9/11 over the years.

I suggest we ALL get on local radio or TV ourselves and NOT mention NPT if we are really that hacked off about it. (Not easy but perfectly possible, both Andrew Johnson and myself (on separate occasions) have been on BBC radio so lets get to it!)

Calum

Abandoned Ego · Post by **Abandoned Ego** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:56 am

Me think we need something more than the usual "it's a lie".Let's try some deep research,done preferably by people able to substantiate with facts what they are talking about.

I dont need to do much research. I just need to look at just a few facts of the official story to know that its a lie. A lie that has seen you and I paying for Death misery and destruction around the planet.

Here is a quick review of but a mere smidgeon of the "official" narrative.

One day, In America, 19 muslims armed with stanley knives and the will of Allah, managed to completely surprise the most sophisticated, technologically advanced nation on Earth. They also managed to stand down the USAF for approx 1 1/2 hours in the process, along with completely bamboozling a multi billion dollar intelligence network...................until.................until....... 48-72 hours later, when the aforementioned intelligence agencies have a list of 19 names on a piece of paper, and the case closed !

Not only that, but 2 airliners fly into 2 towers. The INDESTRUCTIBLE black boxes and flight recorders are reported lost forever in the debris. Fortunately however, they do manage to recover from the wreckage a terrorists passport.

Meanwhile, having been aware of Two planes hitting Two towers, and fully aware that a third plane has been hijacked, Flight 77 manages to fly for 45 minutes unchallenged across US airspace, before its alleged pilot (Hani Hanjour ) - a man who cannot fly a biplane-, manages to complete an aeronautical triple sukhahara in a fuel laden jet airliner, by bringing the plane in at a 270 degree angle at 500 mph, 5 feet off the ground, and hitting the one vacant area of the pentagon - Vacant that is, except for a contracted firm of accountants who were investigating the recently reported 2.3 Trillion dollars apparently "misplaced" by the pentagon budgeteers. - and all of whom went up in smoke, along no doubt with the evidence of where the money went.

And finally, the lead terrorist in this escapade - one devout islamic fundamentalist called mohammed Atta, is on the record as being a coke-snortin-alcohol-drinkin-porkchop-eatin-lap-dance-frequenting-
gambling-stripper-for-a-girlfriend type guy.

Now then, were I to put this in a novel, and send it to the even the most idiotic publisher in the land, and suggest that this was a TRUE STORY, what is your best guess about the outcome ?

And yet, this is just a fraction of the official idiocy of the official story.

So you see, I dont care about what people on the "official story is a lie" side of the fence believe or dont believe.

What I do know, is that none of them are even close to as certifiable as the likes of the BBC, or they lying Oligarchs who control them, or any of the rest of the gullible idiots who buy the official story.

Ruppert, No planers, and anyone else who doesnt believe the clearly idiotic official story, is on my side.

Shouldnt that be our common approach ?

Thermate · Post by **Thermate** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:58 am

Zabooka wrote:people are still going on about NO PLANE THEORY, as if it dominated the Sky News Program. For me, I don't think it did.

It just left a bad taste

If he'd just said go check the WTC7 footage we'd all be pinning medals on him rest assured.

poiuytr · Post by **poiuytr** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:29 am

Abandoned Ego wrote: I dont need to do much research. I just need to look at just a few facts of the official story to know that its a lie.

As much as i would like to agree,i cannot be as optimistic .

By any considerations, it's a very hard sell.

For some people to realise,all it takes is the mention "10 seconds free fall speed" and the slow motionned sight of demolition squibs.

But for everyday folks,it takes A TON of persuading that the american gouvernement would intentionnally kill 3000 of his own citizens.

David Ray Griffin admitted himself he wasn't very convinced by the no plane theory at the pentagone.He let subsequently the matter to rest,and didn't bother to dig any deeper.
If it wasn't for some academician friends of him who directed him to Paul Thompson's timeline,he might not have bothered any further.

Different people take different tresholds of truth to realise.If everyday Jo stumbles on David's sky interview and hears the impact holes damages don't correspond to the size of the planes,i ask you,will he keep paying attention to 911 conspiracy theories in the future?

I certainly wish he would,as i know you would too.But...

Do you think David Ray Griffin would be making conferences throughout the world at this moment if he included non verifiable material in his presentations ??

By twice including the NPT in his sky appearance,David Shayler caused a lot of damage to a mouvement badly needing credibility.

He did more damage than good.

poiuytr · Post by **poiuytr** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:51 am

To prove my point,here's a comment from the skeptics corner in this forum:

"I hope it does get people researching, they will then discover it is half an hour of lies. He is a glib and convincing liar, but of course the "no planes" rubbish at the end gives the game away, it is all a pack of nonsense he enjoys spouting but doesn't even believe in himself. He will say anything at all to get an effect."

prole art threat · Post by **prole art threat** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:03 am

poiuytr wrote:To prove my point,here's a comment from the skeptics corner in this forum:

"I hope it does get people researching, they will then discover it is half an hour of lies. He is a glib and convincing liar, but of course the "no planes" rubbish at the end gives the game away, it is all a pack of nonsense he enjoys spouting but doesn't even believe in himself. He will say anything at all to get an effect."

How can using a quote, as a defence, from one of the loons from Critic's Corner who, on a daily basis, go out of their way to attempt to corrode the Truth Movements' credibility?

Poiuytr, I thought the David Shayler interview was brilliant. I seriously question your claims of him damaging the movements credibility. He didnt mention NPT, he asked people to "study the footage for themselves and make their own mind up." There was a massive amount of information to take in if you were a viewer who for the first time was confronted with the fact that the official 9/11 story was a hoax. The great thing about it is that DS was granted a full half hour to expose 9/11 and he did it honourably. I think DS should be applauded and I admire his gifts as a public orator.

poiuytr · Post by **poiuytr** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:06 am

He mentionned the NPT as if it represented a key point helping to understand the 911 deception.

He meant it.

He lied.

prole art threat · Post by **prole art threat** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:26 am

poiuytr wrote:He mentionned the NPT as if it represented a key point helping to understand the 911 deception.

He meant it.

He lied.

He didnt lie because he believes the NPT. How can mentioning a little bit at the end, a thrice second utterance be interpreted as a 'key point'?

What do you want? He was asked a question and for him to deny the 'No Plane Theory' as being an accepted one in some quarters would have been a lie.

30 minutes of beautiful airtime devoted to our cause! I think it's bloody fantastic!! Watch it again and I think you will find that you are accentuating the negative.

poiuytr · Post by **poiuytr** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:38 am

prole art threat wrote: He didnt lie because he believes the NPT.

Then tell the world the arguments in favor of NPT,so we can judge by ourselves.Really.

I've been asking for this since page six,and all i got was "you're too negative"

poiuytr · Post by **poiuytr** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:03 am

prole art threat wrote:
What do you want? He was asked a question and for him to deny the 'No Plane Theory' as being an accepted one in some quarters would have been a lie.

If "some quarters" imply serious 911 skeptics,then William Rodriguez in person doesn't belong to that group,since he dissociated himself from Jimmy Walter precisely because his NPT stance.

We've got a problem.

prole art threat · Post by **prole art threat** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:03 am

poiuytr wrote:
prole art threat wrote: He didnt lie because he believes the NPT.
Then tell the world the arguments in favor of NPT,so we can judge by ourselves.Really.

I've been asking for this since page six,and all i got was "you're too negative"

The very best thing in the world is for people to be directed to the issue and allowed to peruse and ponder the information for themselves. Go and look it up, if it's not to your liking, that's fair enough. To be honest I am not sure where I stand on the NPT. A few days ago I did submit to the 'General' section that it could be a mixture of all those things, real planes, holograms, beam weapons, missiles, the full firework box.

poiuytr · Post by **poiuytr** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:07 am

prole art threat wrote: To be honest I am not sure where I stand on the NPT. A few days ago I did submit to the 'General' section that it could be a mixture of all those things, real planes, holograms, beam weapons, missiles, the full firework box.

Thank you for proving my point.

prole art threat · Post by **prole art threat** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:13 am

poiuytr wrote:
prole art threat wrote: To be honest I am not sure where I stand on the NPT. A few days ago I did submit to the 'General' section that it could be a mixture of all those things, real planes, holograms, beam weapons, missiles, the full firework box.
Thank you for proving my point.

How have I proved your point? Your point as I remember was that David Shayler had sullied the reputation of the 9/11 Truth Movement beyond repair for daring to mention *whispers and cups hand over mouth* 'en pee tee'.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · Post by **THETRUTHWILLSETU3** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:28 am

http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/holmgren/index.htm

commanderson · Post by **commanderson** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:27 pm

here's what Tblacksheep said over at conspiracy central
"I saw Shayler in a Doc about conspiracys approx 2002-2003 (cant for the lift of me remember what it was now) but he was rubbishing all of the 9/11 conspiracys....

suddenly he was 'awake', now he's on TV and a big uk 911 spokesman and a no planer...

once an agent, always an agent, eh david?"

Does anyone remember this doco and Davids appearance?
Annie insists that they were too busy with court and book stuff to even think about what happened on 9/11, untill recently where upon they woke up and dove into the campaign (no planes blazing). Annie do you remember this doco? Is blacksheep lying about David rubbishing any notion of conspiracy before? If someone actually has it taped, we may be able to nail the coffin here on Shaylergate.

poiuytr · Post by **poiuytr** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:38 pm

I think commanderson has a valid point here...

numeral · Post by **numeral** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:16 pm

poiuytr wrote:I think commanderson has a valid point here...

No, he does not. Citing the words of a person suffering from memory loss is not evidence.

chek · Post by **chek** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:34 pm

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/holmgren/index.htm

The video on that link alone, at its resolution and with its frame-lag, itself demonstrates half the effects you're misinterpreting in the plane strike ones, imho.

Andrew Johnson · Post by **Andrew Johnson** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:37 pm

commanderson wrote:once an agent, always an agent, eh david?"
.

poiuytr wrote:I think commanderson has a valid point here...

Hmmm. Sounds to me like you peeps are getting pretty desparate here... So..... commanderson, and revesred keyboard sequence, may I ask?

Will you take the UK9/11 FORUM IDENTITY CHALLENGE?
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewt ... 5861#15861

commanderson · Post by **commanderson** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:49 pm

"So..... commanderson, and revesred keyboard sequence, may I ask?"

Anderw I don't understand what your asking here

But as for my desperation, sure, it very tenious link I'm looking to investagate. But I think having openess and accountability in the public figures we have, to represent false flag truth here in britian is imoprtant. Even if there is valid reasons for believing NPT (and I don't believe there is), Shayler should realise that intentionally mentioning it would prove detremental to the credability of the conspiracy facts he gave to the general public, by alluding to a very tenious ill-proven conspiracy theorey.
And I know he only said that the planes "melted into those buildings" and to "look at the footage for yourselves" but to us, we know he's taking an NPT stance, enraging all these little sqables between us on issues that ultimately don't matter (other than from a PR perspective) . To the unconverted, it just makes it sound like he believes in something 'wierd', that he won't quite explain, cos its too strange- so bad move, most agree.
Now I could imagine that he might be genuine and convinced of NPT, and just got exited about telling his specific take on the opperation.
But with his silence on the issue, and his history in the intellegence services, it puts him under suspiction as a disinfo agent, still in the employ of Her Majesty.
As such if someone says that a year or so after the event, he's been seen dissing 9/11 conspiracy on TV, then I think its worth putting it out there to see if anyone else saw it, maybe remember what show it was on, what channel it was on, track it down, watch it, see what he says. Cos' even ayear after 9/11 there was plenty smoke to be looking for flames, atleast eneogh not to be dissmissive about the notion of an inside job, so if this is so, I'd pretty much say I would drop Mr Shayler as a trusted representative.

poiuytr · Post by **poiuytr** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:53 pm

Andrew,stay on the topic,plz

commanderson · Post by **commanderson** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:06 pm

here's what Tblacksheep said over at conspiracy central
"

I saw Shayler in a Doc about conspiracys approx 2002-2003 (cant for the lift of me remember what it was now) but he was rubbishing all of the 9/11 conspiracys....

suddenly he was 'awake', now he's on TV and a big uk 911 spokesman and a no planer...

once an agent, always an agent, eh david?"

These weren't my words by the way, I'm just saying if Tblacksheep's correct I'd like to know about it.

Annie · Post by **Annie** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:19 am

commanderson wrote:here's what Tblacksheep said over at conspiracy central
"I saw Shayler in a Doc about conspiracys approx 2002-2003 (cant for the lift of me remember what it was now) but he was rubbishing all of the 9/11 conspiracys....

suddenly he was 'awake', now he's on TV and a big uk 911 spokesman and a no planer...

once an agent, always an agent, eh david?"

Does anyone remember this doco and Davids appearance?
Annie insists that they were too busy with court and book stuff to even think about what happened on 9/11, untill recently where upon they woke up and dove into the campaign (no planes blazing). Annie do you remember this doco? Is blacksheep lying about David rubbishing any notion of conspiracy before? If someone actually has it taped, we may be able to nail the coffin here on Shaylergate.

Hi again commanderson

I didn't insist - you asked me why, so I explained. Take it or leave it.

I have no memory whatsoever about the interview you allege this person is alluding to. Do you know who they are? Is it you??

However, back then David was being repeatedly attacked for being a "fantasist", a "Walter Mitty" character, "holding a grudge" etc etc ad nauseam by our esteemed national media, because he dared to say that MI6 had broken the law, funded terrorists, and killed innocent people. So he MAY have sidestepped a question about 911 at that stage, because he was focusing on trying to get an enquiry into the Gadaffi plot. I'm pretty sure he didn't, but I just don't remember. It's been a hectic few years.

Please bear in mind, the Gadaffi plot is an established case of UK-sponsored false-flag terrorism, where innocent people died. And he went to prison twice for daring to blow the whistle on it.

Are you actually aware of the details of his case? Or did you just sit back and believe what the national media spoon-fed you about him? If you analyse every word uttered by him on the MSM, I hope you brought the same degree of scepticism to bear on what the MSM reported on his case.

And David is not a representative of the 911 Truth Campaign. He is an individual with a certain degree of expertise who speaks the truth as he sees it.

You may well have been looking at the whole 911 issue for years, but forgive me for being slightly suspicious of someone who appears on the forum a mere week ago, and boldly states that Shayler suddenly seized on the 911 campaign. What does that say about you?

Regards

Annie

IronSnot · Post by **IronSnot** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:24 am

Do you think he's a "shill" Annie?

poiuytr · Post by **poiuytr** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:37 am

Annie,

Commanderson is perfectly justified,as i am,to appear on this forum and ask tough questions about David,because David choose to put himself in the public landscape.
Public persons expose themselves to public criticism .

prole art threat · Post by **prole art threat** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:21 am

poiuytr wrote:Annie,

Commanderson is perfectly justified,as i am,to appear on this forum and ask tough questions about David,because David choose to put himself in the public landscape.
Public persons expose themselves to public criticism .

Both you and Commanderson are up to no good. Go away.

poiuytr · Post by **poiuytr** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:26 am

prole art threat wrote: Both you and Commanderson are up to no good. Go away.

How polite from you.
Glad you found at least one issue you know where you stand on.

prole art threat · Post by **prole art threat** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:27 am

poiuytr wrote:
prole art threat wrote: Both you and Commanderson are up to no good. Go away.
How polite from you.
Glad you found at least an issue you know where you stand on.

I know where I stand with you two. Youre a pair of poisonous bitches, clear off out of it!

IronSnot · Post by **IronSnot** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:35 am

Jesus christ, prole, take a chill pill.

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom

Shayler Talks 911 on Sky News

Media control